Climate change: Scientists test radical ways to fix Earth's climate

[Spendulus]

It seems like bullshit. If you spray the ocean salt into the atmosphere then it would probably fall down. I can't prove it but I'm sure that it won't be good for people's health, soil and envioronment. Spread the ocean salt over the entire earth via atmosphere? Genious.
Ocean greening: Why ocean? Why not planting some extra seeds on my backyard? You are choosing the most expensive and retarded way of greening.

It can be done if you read the below article.
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/particles-air-aerosols
...

Aerosols are the LEAST UNDERSTOOD of all of the causes of, or things affecting "climate change."

I'm glad that you have confidence in your beliefs.

Next are we going to hear, "....the Climate Models SAY..."?

[1714857128]

1714857128

[Cryptof11k]

There is something I'd like to know how possible is it for the climate of the earth to be destroyed, I mean climate change is a hoax, There is a God if we don't believe or believe and he made the whole universe. Sorry am being so radical but I guess there is still freedom of speech. If God made it and we know he is all sufficient, then am sure He can keep it safe. Haha

[BADecker]

^^^

Genesis 8:22:

As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.

Matthew 5:18:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

[Spendulus]

There is something I'd like to know how possible is it for the climate of the earth to be destroyed, I mean climate change is a hoax, There is a God if we don't believe or believe and he made the whole universe. Sorry am being so radical but I guess there is still freedom of speech. If God made it and we know he is all sufficient, then am sure He can keep it safe. Haha

Reputable scientists, including those such as reporting through the IPCC on climate change, do not hold that it is a massive crisis. They do not maintain that massive countermeasures are necessary or wise. They do not maintain that climate change is a crisis that may cause massive numbers of human deaths.

But there are certainly things that could cause climate change.

In the 1980s, Carl Sagan and others popularized the idea that following a nuclear war, there could be a "nuclear winter" that changed the climate for perhaps ten years.

This was IIRC a complete hoax.

A large asteroid strike could easily change the planet's weather, along with killing most or all creatures.

[coins4commies]

As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing.  To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets.  No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.   

There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now.  Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy.  Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down. 

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth. 

[Spendulus]

As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing.  To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets.  No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.   

There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now.  Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy.  Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down. 

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth. 

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

[BADecker]

Scientists and meteorologists can barely predict the weather a little. What makes them think they have even a clue about changing the climate?

[coins4commies]

As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing.  To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets.  No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.   

There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now.  Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy.  Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down. 

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth. 

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

CO2 concentration and temperature are linked (greenhouse effect).  The natural limit before the industrial revolution had been 300ppm so  the temperatures that correspond to the correct amount of CO2 (180-300ppm) would be the correct temperature.   The problem is people who don't know science muddying the waters by injecting their own ignorance into the debate.

[tvbcof]

As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing.  To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets.  No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.

Those of us who know something about science and have studied the issue simply don't trust the data advertised by the chicken-little crowd.  It's demonstrably fake a lot of times, and you 'climate scientists' have been caught engaging in fraud for money often enough.

There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now.  Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy.  Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down.

No 'technology' except nuclear fusion can 'take CO2 and turn it into energy'.  That is an ignorant thing for a high school physics student to say, much less a 'climate scientist'.

In my area when you cut down a tree dozens will grow back where they have sunlight to do so.  The same phenomenon exists in every part of the world I've visited, and I'm relatively well traveled.

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth. 

I have serious doubts that you are either a climate scientist or a commie, but let's say for the sake of discussion that you are.  This would be a good example of a 'watermelon'.  Green on the outside and red on the inside.  The climate change scammers make no bones about the fact that their overall goal is to change the economic system of the world, which explains why they have no compunction about engaging in pseudo-science and outright fraud.

The sad thing is that a lot of the boots on the ground really in their heart of hearts believe in Socialism/Communism/whatever and earnestly believe that that is what they are working towards.  They are not.  The people who pull their strings (e.g., issue them grants) are the oligarchs who made their pools of wealth in the industrial revolution timeframes (often in the energy sector) and are engineering a way to keep and grow these pools of wealth in the post-industrial times.  You are not going to get 'communism' out of this green scammery.  The design goal is to get a more complete dictatorship with a technocratic control grid.  Those who actually do have a strong belief in 'socialism' will probably be bumped off.  But most of these people believe that 7 billion is to many people for the planet anyway, so at least they get to be 'part of the solution' for a change.

[Spendulus]

....
CO2 concentration and temperature are linked (greenhouse effect).  The natural limit before the industrial revolution had been 300ppm so  the temperatures that correspond to the correct amount of CO2 (180-300ppm) would be the correct temperature.   ...

So you are not going to answer my simple question.

Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years.

That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right?

[semobo]

It seems like bullshit. If you spray the ocean salt into the atmosphere then it would probably fall down. I can't prove it but I'm sure that it won't be good for people's health, soil and envioronment. Spread the ocean salt over the entire earth via atmosphere? Genious.
Ocean greening: Why ocean? Why not planting some extra seeds on my backyard? You are choosing the most expensive and retarded way of greening.

It can be done if you read the below article.
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/particles-air-aerosols
...

Aerosols are the LEAST UNDERSTOOD of all of the causes of, or things affecting "climate change."

I'm glad that you have confidence in your beliefs.

Next are we going to hear, "....the Climate Models SAY..."?

Scientifically it is proven that we can bring climate changes by introducing the appropriate chemical agents into the atmosphere but it is practical? Even if possible it is not enough to bring changes on whole world.

[coins4commies]

As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing.  To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets.  No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.

Those of us who know something about science and have studied the issue simply don't trust the data advertised by the chicken-little crowd.  It's demonstrably fake a lot of times, and you 'climate scientists' have been caught engaging in fraud for money often enough.

There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now.  Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy.  Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down.

No 'technology' except nuclear fusion can 'take CO2 and turn it into energy'.  That is an ignorant thing for a high school physics student to say, much less a 'climate scientist'.

In my area when you cut down a tree dozens will grow back where they have sunlight to do so.  The same phenomenon exists in every part of the world I've visited, and I'm relatively well traveled.

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth. 

I have serious doubts that you are either a climate scientist or a commie, but let's say for the sake of discussion that you are.  This would be a good example of a 'watermelon'.  Green on the outside and red on the inside.  The climate change scammers make no bones about the fact that their overall goal is to change the economic system of the world, which explains why they have no compunction about engaging in pseudo-science and outright fraud.

The sad thing is that a lot of the boots on the ground really in their heart of hearts believe in Socialism/Communism/whatever and earnestly believe that that is what they are working towards.  They are not.  The people who pull their strings (e.g., issue them grants) are the oligarchs who made their pools of wealth in the industrial revolution timeframes (often in the energy sector) and are engineering a way to keep and grow these pools of wealth in the post-industrial times.  You are not going to get 'communism' out of this green scammery.  The design goal is to get a more complete dictatorship with a technocratic control grid.  Those who actually do have a strong belief in 'socialism' will probably be bumped off.  But most of these people believe that 7 billion is to many people for the planet anyway, so at least they get to be 'part of the solution' for a change.

The scientific community has an easy way of outing fradulent science and the peer review process weeds out anything that isn't credible.  All of the data used to reach a scientific consensus is reproducible.  If you have doubts about the credibility of scientific consensus, you are a science denier.

  My quote calling tree technology was sarcasm.  Its obvious that forests cannot grow back if the land has been developed or is still being used for farming or grazing.  Its true that temperate forests grow back relatively quickly but haven't traveled to enough tropical places because tropical rainforests have difficulty growing back once they have been cleared as the soil is quickly depleted.  Even a simple process like growing bananas and shipping them away depletes the soil because the nutrients are in the bananas being shipped away and that biomass never returns to the soil.

Scientific thinking involves actively rejecting your biases and identifying root causes or problems.  People don't destroy the planet because they want to, they do it for survival and profit.  This is because capitalism creates an economy that puts no value on the health of ecosystems, or the distant future.  Anyone who searches for the root causes of environmental problems will arrive at capitalism as the culprit.  This doesn't make anyone red or a communist but solutions to capitalism-induced problems will clearly be at odds with the mindset of maximizing profits at all costs.  

....
CO2 concentration and temperature are linked (greenhouse effect).  The natural limit before the industrial revolution had been 300ppm so  the temperatures that correspond to the correct amount of CO2 (180-300ppm) would be the correct temperature.   ...

So you are not going to answer my simple question.

Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years.

That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right?

The question itself is a distraction from the cause of the problem.  Temperature change is a response to human greenhouse emissions.  Just one of the many responses.  Instead of focusing on one effect, why not focus on what the amount of carbon dioxide should be because its the root cause of all of the other things we are worried about?

[tvbcof]

...
Scientific thinking involves actively rejecting your biases and identifying root causes or problems. ...

As a matter of fact, my 'biases' were on your side as recently as the middle of the lifetime of this forum.  My 'biases' were implanted during my exposure to the state funded education system.

Once I finally decided to knuckle down and study the climate change issue it only took a few weeks to see the fraud, and after years more of off-and-on study, evidence favoring the hypothesis of the whole thing being a politically motivated hoax only gets stronger.

In my case the fraud perpetrated by the climate change scammers has induced me to delete a whole bunch of my 'understandings' gained through 'education' about the nature of 'science'.  As well it has induced me to increase my study of political systems, religious systems, etc, etc.

I doubt that this is the desired outcome, but it's also probably the experience of only a relatively small minority.  A bearable 'cost of doing business' in the climate change hoax project's balance sheet.  You (or I should say, your sponsors) are winning, but you are also creating a 'remnant'.  We'll see how that plays out.

[Spendulus]

As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing.  To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets.  No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.

Those of us who know something about science and have studied the issue simply don't trust the data advertised by the chicken-little crowd.  It's demonstrably fake a lot of times, and you 'climate scientists' have been caught engaging in fraud for money often enough.

There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now.  Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy.  Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down.

No 'technology' except nuclear fusion can 'take CO2 and turn it into energy'.  That is an ignorant thing for a high school physics student to say, much less a 'climate scientist'.

In my area when you cut down a tree dozens will grow back where they have sunlight to do so.  The same phenomenon exists in every part of the world I've visited, and I'm relatively well traveled.

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth.  

I have serious doubts that you are either a climate scientist or a commie, but let's say for the sake of discussion that you are.  This would be a good example of a 'watermelon'.  Green on the outside and red on the inside.  The climate change scammers make no bones about the fact that their overall goal is to change the economic system of the world, which explains why they have no compunction about engaging in pseudo-science and outright fraud.

The sad thing is that a lot of the boots on the ground really in their heart of hearts believe in Socialism/Communism/whatever and earnestly believe that that is what they are working towards.  They are not.  The people who pull their strings (e.g., issue them grants) are the oligarchs who made their pools of wealth in the industrial revolution timeframes (often in the energy sector) and are engineering a way to keep and grow these pools of wealth in the post-industrial times.  You are not going to get 'communism' out of this green scammery.  The design goal is to get a more complete dictatorship with a technocratic control grid.  Those who actually do have a strong belief in 'socialism' will probably be bumped off.  But most of these people believe that 7 billion is to many people for the planet anyway, so at least they get to be 'part of the solution' for a change.

The scientific community has an easy way of outing fradulent science and the peer review process weeds out anything that isn't credible.  All of the data used to reach a scientific consensus is reproducible.  If you have doubts about the credibility of scientific consensus, you are a science denier.

  My quote calling tree technology was sarcasm.  Its obvious that forests cannot grow back if the land has been developed or is still being used for farming or grazing.  Its true that temperate forests grow back relatively quickly but haven't traveled to enough tropical places because tropical rainforests have difficulty growing back once they have been cleared as the soil is quickly depleted.  Even a simple process like growing bananas and shipping them away depletes the soil because the nutrients are in the bananas being shipped away and that biomass never returns to the soil.

Scientific thinking involves actively rejecting your biases and identifying root causes or problems.  People don't destroy the planet because they want to, they do it for survival and profit.  This is because capitalism creates an economy that puts no value on the health of ecosystems, or the distant future.  Anyone who searches for the root causes of environmental problems will arrive at capitalism as the culprit.  This doesn't make anyone red or a communist but solutions to capitalism-induced problems will clearly be at odds with the mindset of maximizing profits at all costs.  

....
CO2 concentration and temperature are linked (greenhouse effect).  The natural limit before the industrial revolution had been 300ppm so  the temperatures that correspond to the correct amount of CO2 (180-300ppm) would be the correct temperature.   ...

So you are not going to answer my simple question.

Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years.

That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right?

The question itself is a distraction from the cause of the problem.  Temperature change is a response to human greenhouse emissions.  Just one of the many responses.  Instead of focusing on one effect, why not focus on what the amount of carbon dioxide should be because its the root cause of all of the other things we are worried about?

The question is not a distraction, and your ducking responding is an answer.

Temperature change is a response to many factors, of which one minor one is human greenhouse emissions.

Further, carbon dioxide is not the "root cause of all the other things we are worried about." We need to be worried about global cooling, according to eminent astrophysicists and solar scientists. We certainly need to be worried about random asteroids hitting Earth.

The simple fact is if you cannot state a temperature which is the temperature we should return to, after correcting all alleged problems, you have no credible basis for arguing about climate change. You also have no credible basis for claiming you are a climate scientist.

I take it then you are refusing to answer my simple questions.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

[coins4commies]

The question is not a distraction, and your ducking responding is an answer.

Temperature change is a response to many factors, of which one minor one is human greenhouse emissions.

Further, carbon dioxide is not the "root cause of all the other things we are worried about." We need to be worried about global cooling, according to eminent astrophysicists and solar scientists. We certainly need to be worried about random asteroids hitting Earth.

The simple fact is if you cannot state a temperature which is the temperature we should return to, after correcting all alleged problems, you have no credible basis for arguing about climate change. You also have no credible basis for claiming you are a climate scientist.

I take it then you are refusing to answer my simple questions.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

The problem is that your questions are not genuine, could be easily googled, and are simply meant to muddy the waters of the discussion by confusing people who don't know about these things already.  If you have a point then make it but don't pretend to ask questions. CO2 is the root cause of all things we need to be worried about in the context of climate change.  Yes there are other GHG but CO2 is the main one we are releasing that will stick around causing much of the additional water and methane to end up in the atmosphere.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for global cooling that is made up. Even if we pretended Earth wasn't warming, CO2 emissions would still be an emergency situation. There are many effects but ocean acidification by itself would still be a global emergency.  

I have said all along in this thread that the goal is not to put the temperature back to a certain place.  The goal is to limit carbon emissions.  It is smart to treat causes not symptoms.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/
Good place to start

[BADecker]

^^^ CO2 is the root cause of plant growth. It is the root cause, when combined with water and nitrogen and sunlight why there is enough food for people around the world. When food is abundant, more people are fostered into being by parents who have more time to "play."

Even though the Earth isn't warming other than ups and downs that have always happened, we need more land. Global warming would open up cold lands for habitation. Warmer weather in general would cause more moisture to be evaporated into the air, some of which would be deposited onto the deserts of the world, opening them up for easy habitation.

More crops could be grown on the lands that were opened up, to feed the larger populations of the world.

The whole false notion of global warming as a bad thing, is being fostered by people who don't what you to have a fun life with your pet wife/husband, so that you can have and raise more kids in more security, so you have more support in your old age.

You climate change jokers are completely missing it.

[SaltySpitoon]

Climate change deniers take advantage of snippets of what climate scientists say, disregarding the rest. The whole idea that there isn't consensus on climate change in the scientific community comes from the responsible peer reviewing process where other climate scientists question every part of any findings for the sake of academic honesty. The biggest excuse used right now is that our data set is too small to make any scientifically significant judgement. Thats sort of true, but not so much in a way that supports the denial of climate change. If we saw a 20 degree shift in a matter of a single day, the same argument would stand. Academic honesty prevents real climate scientists from saying, we have calculated that in 9.17549 years the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees. It allows them to say, we predict that in 9.17549 years considering the data that we've collected over the past 100 years, the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees.

People then say, yeah but thats like just your prediction man, and then we end up with the problem we are in. Its not as critical of a matter at this time as some try to make it sound, but reversing climate change gets more difficult the further we keep spurring it on. We've got a handful of groups all fighting against each other right now. Real climate scientists, advocates for climate science who are making it worse by trying to appeal by sensationalizing and misinterpreting data to make it look more extreme, and climate change deniers who argue against the climate science advocates.

So you are not going to answer my simple question.

Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years.

That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right?

Nope, they cannot. You'll need teams of thermo/astrophysicists and engineers (to make the data interpretable) for that. We know the temperature of the universe to its creation with an error of 10^-35 seconds. Telling you exactly what temperature the earth should be is cake, you just need a team of people in the correct fields.

-snip-
There is absolutely no scientific basis for global cooling that is made up. Even if we pretended Earth wasn't warming, CO2 emissions would still be an emergency situation. There are many effects but ocean acidification by itself would still be a global emergency.  

Global cooling is a real thing, its just localized and improperly described by nearly anyone that has a half understanding of it. The area that I live in is technically experiencing global cooling due to equilibrium conditions modeled by adiabatic/isotherm curves resulting from emission shielding from atmospheric debris (dust mixing with vapors). Essentially just how weather forecasts are predicted but with corrections that allow them to be stretched out longer term. Taking a guess here, but I'd say that less than 1/10,000th of the world's population is being effected by global cooling. Its kind of one of those fringe cases.

[tvbcof]

...
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Good place to start

NASA is probably one of the worst places to start considering the the High Priest types that they hire (e.g., James Hansen.)

What is it now, '12 years' before climate catastrophe?

It's time to face up to the fact that you guys have become a doomsday cult.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a good number of you could be convinced to take cyanide because the Hale-Bopp comet was relatively close to earth's orbit.

[Spendulus]

...

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

.....
There is absolutely no scientific basis for global cooling that is made up. .....

Factually Incorrect.

https://principia-scientific.org/norwegian-scientist-global-cooling-beginning-due-low-solar-activity/

Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases.  Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes.

For example, in 2016 alone, there were at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting a significant solar influence on climate.  Among them there were 18 papers that directly connected centennial-scale periods of low solar activity (the Little Ice Age) with cooler climates, and periods of high solar activity (the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period [20th Century]) with high solar activity levels.  Another 10 papers warned of an impending solar minimum and concomitant cooling period in the coming decades.

And this trend of scientists linking climate changes to solar forcing mechanisms — and bypassing an anthropogenic explanation — continues to rage on in 2017.A Seminal New Paper Unveils The ‘Cause Of Causes’ Of Climate Change

In their groundbreaking New Astronomy paper, Norwegian professors Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim indicate that the modern (1940-2015) Grand Maximum of very high solar activity — the highest solar activity levels in 4,000 years — has just ended.

...

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

The problem is that your questions are not genuine, could be easily googled, and are simply meant to muddy the waters....

I have said all along in this thread that the goal is not to put the temperature back to a certain place.  The goal is to limit carbon emissions.  It is smart to treat causes not symptoms.  

I don't think your answers are genuine. If you can't explain why what you propose is actually good, and you can't show the effect of your proposals, you have nothing except a massive control freak scheme.

[Spendulus]

Climate change deniers take advantage of snippets of what climate scientists say, disregarding the rest. The whole idea that there isn't consensus on climate change in the scientific community comes from the responsible peer reviewing process where other climate scientists question every part of any findings for the sake of academic honesty. The biggest excuse used right now is that our data set is too small to make any scientifically significant judgement. Thats sort of true, but not so much in a way that supports the denial of climate change. If we saw a 20 degree shift in a matter of a single day, the same argument would stand. Academic honesty prevents real climate scientists from saying, we have calculated that in 9.17549 years the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees. It allows them to say, we predict that in 9.17549 years considering the data that we've collected over the past 100 years, the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees.

People then say, yeah but thats like just your prediction man, and then we end up with the problem we are in. Its not as critical of a matter at this time as some try to make it sound, but reversing climate change gets more difficult the further we keep spurring it on. We've got a handful of groups all fighting against each other right now. Real climate scientists, advocates for climate science who are making it worse by trying to appeal by sensationalizing and misinterpreting data to make it look more extreme, and climate change deniers who argue against the climate science advocates.

So you are not going to answer my simple question.

Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years.

That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right?

Nope, they cannot. You'll need teams of thermo/astrophysicists and engineers (to make the data interpretable) for that. ...Telling you exactly what temperature the earth should be is cake, you just need a team of people in the correct fields....

Yes, they should be able to, if the model they have been taught is accurate. Because they would have been told during class the answers found by those teams, and they would parrot them back on the quiz without understanding much.

What I've noted as questions do nicely show the problems of climate science as promulgated. You have suggested an appropriate technical team could easily find the "correct temperature." It says volumes that that is not done.

By ignoring heat content, characteristic behavior of gray bodies, and multiphase environments, a false "social good" is promulgated that "co2 BAD", "more co2 VERY BAD."